Blessings!

Not sure if you're correcting me Paul or agreeing? But thx for commenting.
But "Yes...thank you Jesus"!!

I need to clarify something...for my wonderful friends questioning my blog! Please don't misunderstand my confusion. This is a great Christ-based website, the fellowship, scriptures, Holy Spirit based blogs are all awesome...all I'm asking is "WHY" that statement is there? It might be a question I need to refer to the founder of this website, but honestly it's not going to change anything, so why ask   :)

May God Bless you ALL!

The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief. A creed is an epitome, not a full definition, of what is required for orthodoxy. It was hoped that by memorizing this summary of the faith, lay people without extensive theological training would still be able to recognize deviations from orthodox doctrines based on the Bible as interpreted in Christian Tradition.

The Nicene Creed, both in its original and revised formulas, is an implicit condemnation of specific beliefs as errors. Thus, as different variations in Christian belief evolved in the fourth century and were perceived as threats, new phrases were seen to be needed, like amendments to a constitution. As the historical developments of a constitutional society can be traced through amendments to its constitution, the particular theological developments in a religious society show in the successive forms of its written creed.

Positively, the Nicene Creed establishes the concept of the Trinity as a central doctrine of mainstream Christianity.

The original Nicene Creed of 325

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the text ended after the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit", after which an anathema was added.^[1]

The Coptic Church has the tradition that the original creed was authored by Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria. F. J. A. Hort and Adolf Harnack argued that the Nicene creed was the local creed of Caesarea brought to the council by Eusebius of Caesarea. J.N.D. Kelly sees as its basis a baptismal creed of the Syro-Phoenician family, related to (but not dependent on) the creed cited by Cyril of Jerusalem and to the creed of Eusebius.

Soon after the Council of Nicaea, new formulae of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to counter new phases of Arianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia identifies at least four before the Council of Sardica (341), where a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts of the Council, though it was not agreed on.

The Nicene Creed of 381

The second Ecumenical Council in 381 added the section that follows the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit" (without the words "and the son");^[2] hence the name "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed", referring to the Creed as it was after the modification in Constantinople. This is the received text of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches^[3] but in the liturgy they use a modified form of it, changing the plural verbs by which the Fathers of the Council collectively professed their faith to the singular of the individual Christian's profession of faith.

The third Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the 381 version, and decreed that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa."^[4] Some have interpreted this as a prohibition against changing this creed or composing others, but not all accept this interpretation.^[5] This question must be considered against the background of long and continuous controversy in the Church concerning the nature of the Trinity, and of Jesus in particular; and the question whether a creed proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council is a definitive and final statement of belief or subject to change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cade_One is right.  It's important to remember that when the Christian faith was begun amongst the Gentiles there was no word to describe how it applied across gender, ethnic and historic demarcations.  We can now see it as being something that is unique to each small group yet broad across the earth.  The word "catholic" is not exactly the same as "universal" but it conveys the concept.  Many churches change the word to "universal" if they are not part of a Roman catholic background.  But it should not be confused with the current thinking on "universalism" as a faith.

I saw this on MyChurch recently.  I think it's a good benchmark and I'm glad it's there.

Peace!

Although catholic does mean "universal/general" (derived from the greek word katholikos), the Catholic Church already has the term distinguished as the Catholic Church.  In my opinion, for the sake of clarity the word catholic should not be used in the Christian Churches.  Why would a Christian Church use the word "catholic Church" when you can easily use the word Christian Church?  If you're a Catholic Church you should say "Catholic Church" (instead of catholic Church) and Christians should say Christian Church.  Wouldn't this clarify thing? 

Why does mychurch.org have that whole thing about nicene creed in the front page anyways?  is the apostle's creed unacceptable?

 :) 

Bongo, it's a pretty standard statement of faith, accepted for many centuries by Christians across the denominational spectrum, from Catholics to Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. Some Protestant churches substitute "universal" for "catholic", but most simply keep the original wording, since "Roman Catholicism" wasn't intended from the start.